Recent Research Reports and News: October
2002
Fathers—Research | Children
& Families | Fatbers/Mothers
in Prison | Census Data
| Systemic Barriers
| Welfare Reform
| NCOFF Abstracts
-
In Their Own Right: Addressing the Sexual And Reproductive
Health Needs of American Men, Allan Guttmacher Institute, March
2002.
Executive Summary Excerpt:
In recent years, awareness has grown of the need to address the
sexual and reproductive behaviors and health of men. This recognition
reflects the advent of HIV and the critical role of condom use in
preventing sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), concerns about the
role of men in teenage pregnancies and births, and the failure of
many divorced and unmarried fathers to fulfill their parental responsibilities.
The result has been programs' efforts to bring men--particularly the
partners of women clients--into the existing reproductive health system.
Still, the sexual and reproductive health needs of men in their
own right--as individuals and not simply as women's partners--have
been largely ignored. The family planning, public health and contraceptive
research communities have learned to regard and treat women as individuals,
not just wives and mothers. It is time to do the same for men: to
recognize that their reproductive health is, above all, about their
own well-being and their ability to engage in healthy, fulfilling
sexual relationships.
In Their Own Right: Addressing the Sexual and Reproductive Health
Needs of American Men aims to take some initial steps in that direction
by providing an overview of some fundamental patterns in men's sexual
and reproductive lives, and their implications for policy and programs.
It focuses on men 15-49 years old, because during these years, men
typically pass the main sexual and reproductive milestones, from
the initiation of sexual activity to marriage and fatherhood. And
it underscores both gaps in what is known and obstacles to serving
men effectively. This summary presents some of the report's key
findings.
Press Release Excerpt:
In the first-ever comprehensive compilation and analysis of national
research findings on the sexual and reproductive health needs of
men in the United States, The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) has
identified information and service gaps with serious consequences
for men, women and families. "In Their Own Right: Addressing the
Sexual and Reproductive Health Needs of American Men" finds that
from first sex to marriage to parenthood, men lack essential information,
access to important services and, in many cases, even awareness
that they have sexual and reproductive health needs of their own.
"In treating major public health problems such as unintended pregnancy
and sexually transmitted diseases primarily as women's issues, we
as a country have been fighting with one hand tied behind our back,"
said Sara Seims, AGI president and Chief Executive Officer. "In
order to take the next steps toward building a healthier society,
we must pay more attention to men, who have sexual and reproductive
health needs in their own right, as well as in their roles as partners
and fathers."
Many of the study findings on men mirror what previous studies
have found for women. On nearly every indicator--including age at
first intercourse, marriage and divorce rates, early fatherhood
and living apart from their biological children, rates of sexually
transmitted disease (STD) infection and health insurance coverage--poor
men fare worse than better-off men, and minority men fare worse
than white men. However, several findings specific to men were particularly
noteworthy.
- Most American men begin sexual intercourse in their teens,
and half have married and become fathers by their late 20s. This
means that men spend an average of nearly 10 years being sexually
active and unmarried.
- Half of births involving men in their late 20s, and about one-third
of those involving men in their 30s and early 40s, result from
unintended conceptions.
- At least one-third of pregnancies involving men in their teens
and early 20s end in abortion, compared with no more than a quarter
of pregnancies in which the men involved are in their late 20s
and in their 30s. One-third of pregnancies involving men in their
40s end in abortion.
- American men have an average of two children; many men are
fathers to stepchildren, adopted children and foster children.
One in 10 men in their 30s have biological children who do not
live with them.
- Men now spend more time than their fathers did in helping to
care for young children, but only half as much time as mothers
doing nothing but taking care of children.
- At least one-quarter of men aged 15-29, 17% of men in their
30s and 12% of men in their 40s had more than one sexual partner
in the last year.
- More than two-thirds of young men who became sexually active
in the mid-1990s used a condom at first intercourse, compared
with about one-quarter in the early 1980s. Still, four in 10 men
aged 20-27 erroneously believe that condom use presents health
risks.
- Most men have heard of HIV, AIDS, gonorrhea and syphilis, but
far fewer know about genital warts or are aware that chlamydia
can infect men. One in five men have limited knowledge about how
to prevent these STDs.
- Only about 14% of men aged 15-49 make a sexual or reproductive
health visit annually; younger men, who are at the greatest risk
of unintended pregnancy and STDs, are the least likely to make
a sexual or reproductive health care visit.
Although men are involved in pregnancies--intended as well as unintended--and
are affected by STDs, there is no commonly agreed upon definition
of sexual and reproductive health care for men, and few health professionals
are trained to meet men's needs. Essential services, including information
on how to prevent transmission of STDs, counseling regarding relationships
and parenting, and medical sexual and reproductive health services,
are often unavailable.
The report concludes that helping men obtain the sexual and reproductive
health information and services they need to protect their own health
and well-being also should result in lower levels of STDs, fewer
unwanted pregnancies and births and better parenting.
"We were pleased to find that many men are, in fact, doing quite
well. However, comprehensive sexuality education that provides young
men information they so desperately need is in danger, and programs
truly addressing men's needs are few and far between," Dr. Seims
explains. "Our findings make it clear that in order to promote healthy
relationships, we need to go beyond existing policies and programs,
and pay attention to the importance of information, counseling and
services--for men and women. What increasingly is seen as good for
men in their own right should also ultimately benefit men and women
as individuals, couples, their families and society as a whole.
"
For a copy of the complete Executive
Summary and Press Release, visit the Guttmacher web site. The
full report
is available in PDF format, after registration.
-
State of Our Unions: The Social Health of Marriage in America,
The National Marriage Project, Rutgers University, 2002.
This publication
includes two parts: Social Indicators of Marital Health and Wellbeing:
Trends of the Past Four Decades and and essay based on these findings
entitled "Why Men Won't Commit."
Why Men Won't Commit--Executive Summary:
A special essay on young, not-yet married menís attitudes on the
timing of marriage finds that men experience few social pressures
to marry, gain many of the benefits of marriage by cohabiting with
a romantic partner, and are ever more reluctant to commit to marriage
in their early adult years. Available evidence on marriage trends
over the past four decades indicates that marriage has declined
dramatically as a first living together experience for couples and
as a status of parenthood. However, in recent years, there are signs
that some marriage-weakening trends are slowing or in some cases
leveling off.
The Social Health of Marriage in America:
KEY FINDING: Marriage
trends in the United States in recent decades indicate that Americans
have become less likely to marry, and that fewer of those who do
marry have marriages they consider to be "very happy."
Americans have become less likely to marry. This is reflected in
a decline of more than one third, from 1970 to 2000, in the annual
number of marriages per 1000 unmarried adult women (Figure 1). Some
of this decline—it is not clear just how much— results
from the delaying of first marriages until older ages: the median
age at first marriage went from 20 for females and 23 for males
in 1960 to about 25 and 27, respectively, in recent years. (See
"Age at First Marriage: What’s Best?") Other factors
accounting for the decline are the growth of unmarried cohabitation
and a small decrease in the tendency of divorced persons to remarry.
The decline also probably reflects an actual increase in lifelong
singlehood, though this will not be known for sure until current
young and middle-aged adults pass through the life course.
The percentage of adults in the population who are married has
also diminished. Since 1960, the decline of those married among
all persons age 15 and older has been more than eleven percentage
points— and nearly 24 points among black females (Figure 2).
It should be noted that these data include both people who have
not ever married and those who have married and then divorced.
In order partially to control for a decline in married adults simply
due to delayed first marriages, we have looked at changes in the
percentage of persons age 35 through 44 who were married (Figure
3). Since 1960, there has been a drop of 19 percentage points for
married men and 16 points for married women. Although we typically
think of the United States today as "the most marrying country,"
we actually rank relatively low among the industrialized nations
in this age group. In 1998, for example, we had a lower percentage
of married women than Germany, Great Britain and the Netherlands.
-
When a Daughter Is Groomed for Chief, Weld Royal, New York
Times, October 6, 2002 .
Article Excerpt:
"Every other day, he'd come into my office kidding me, `If you don't
have a baby soon, I will fire you,' " said Julie Smolyansky, now 27,
the chief executive of Lifeway Foods Inc. in Morton Grove, Ill., a
$10.7 million manufacturer of specialized dairy products and other
natural foods.
For Katie Brown Blackburn, executive vice president of the Cincinnati
Bengals and heir apparent to the team's throne, it is not so much
her father's joshing as his childhood nickname for her: "Pumpky."
"You never know who he's going to say it in front of, but there
are some times when I wish he wouldn't," said Ms. Blackburn, 37,
who is responsible for negotiating player contracts and overseeing
the team's radio and television networks.
Carolyn Martini, the chief executive of the Louis M. Martini Winery
in St. Helena, Calif., wasn't so circumspect about her father's
comments. On her first week on the job, "He said something that
set me off," she recalled. "I yelled, he yelled, and we both went
huffing off. Then we realized if we're going to work together, we
can't do this. Both of us apologized simultaneously."
Of the nation's 500 largest publicly traded companies, only six,
or 1.2 percent, are run by women. That compares with 9.5 percent
of 30,000 family businesses surveyed by the George & Robin Raymond
Family Business Institute and four other groups. And 34 percent
of the respondents in that poll said their next C.E.O. might be
a woman.
In family businesses of all sizes, chief-executive fathers are
molding their daughters in their own images. Belinda Stronach runs
Magna International Inc., an $11 billion auto parts maker founded
by her father, Frank. Abigail Johnson is now president of FMR, parent
of Fidelity Investments, the giant fund management company, and
analysts expect her to succeed her father, Edward C. Johnson III,
72, as chairman.
For a copy of the complete article, visit the New
York Times web site.
-
Watch Out, Listen Up! The 2002 Feminist Primetime Report,
National Organization for Women, October 28, 2002.
Highlights from the 2002 Feminist Primetime Report:
What is television's role in our society? Is it simply entertainment,
fantasy, an escape? Or should its potential to influence, persuade
and inform be taken more seriously? We live with TV in our homes,
every day, every night. For good or bad, it is a part of us. But are
we a part of it? TV has the power to bring people together, to show
viewers a full picture of our society. It also has the power to endorse
destructive behavior, to reinforce the inequalities between women
and men, and to ignore whole communities and sideline other groups
of people.
In the third year of producing the Watch Out, Listen Up! report, our field analysts observed a continued lack of gender and racial diversity on TV. Outdated and negative stereotypes were common where diversity did exist. In our official tally, the six broadcast networks employed 134 more men than women in regular primetime roles. Programs told from a male point-of-view outnumbered those with a female point-of-view more than two-to-one.
According to our monitors, 57% of primetime programs last season depended on some level of violence or hostile behavior for entertainment value. Included in this are newsmagazines like Dateline, 20/20 and 48 Hours, which have become increasingly tabloid-ized, relying on salacious murder mysteries for content. And numerous comedies, reality shows and game shows spotlighted anger, back-stabbing and cruel intentions for fun and profit.
The gap between shows that portray female characters with dignity and respect, and programs that sexually exploit women appears to have widened. On one end of the spectrum the networks give us Judging Amy, Law & Order and The West Wing where women are smart, resourceful and in charge. Way on the other end of that spectrum, the networks offer Fear Factor, The Bachelor, WWE Smackdown! and The Drew Carey Show where women exist to be ogled, used and demeaned.
We've said it in previous reports, and we'll say it againóthe situation comedy is a sorry place for women on TV these days. They must be beautiful, thin and younger than their male counterparts, and willing to use their sexuality for laughs and titillation. In workplace comedies, women characters often shrug off sexually harassing behavior that would be unwelcome in the real world. In family comedies, women frequently play the sensible, hard-working wife/mommy to a lazy, immature husband. Sadly missing is a strong, high-profile comedic character in the tradition of I Love Lucy, Murphy Brown, Mary Tyler Moore or Roseanne. Do the characters of Rachel (from Friends), Grace (from Will & Grace) or Reba qualify to fill that role? Will the networks give the women on new shows such as Life with Bonnie or Less Than Perfect the right material to take on the mantle? Where are the powerful, funny women of color? Can Girlfriends carry that torch alone?
Field analysts commented on the low level of maturity in primetime TV and its overall lack of interest in social issues. Virtually no one on TV cares about what's going on in their communities or the larger world. TV is reluctant to accept older people, fat people, people with disabilities, blue collar workers. There's not much we at home can relate toóvery little time is spent on common concerns like paying the rent and bills, job hunting, health problems, birth control, childcare, car trouble, cooking dinner, cleaning, etc. But TV certainly does embrace the kinds of lifestyles and possessions ordinary people are supposed to covet.
So, if primetime television is a fantasy, whose fantasy is it? Every night viewers are presented with humor that relies on making fun of others; gross-out stunts like eating bugs and drinking blood; plenty of cops & robbers; groups of guys hanging out drinking beer and watching football; young, sexy women everywhere who fancy even the most awkward of men; hardly any older women unless they're somebody's mother; cool clothes, hot cars and huge apartments; hidden cameras catching people acting foolish; renegade "cowboys" who break the rules but come out on top; and an unusual number of superheroes, time travelers and space explorers. Could it be that broadcast television is lost in an adolescent boy's fantasyland?
The networks clearly feel little responsibility for what they put on the air, as long as it brings in advertising revenue. More and more, advertisers dictate what we see on TV. The corporations who manufacture products favor targeting viewers ages 18-34, so that's the type of content we all get. It doesn't matter that 64% of primetime viewers on an average night are 35 or older. If you are a middle-aged woman, a lesbian, a Latina, a woman with a disability, a woman of size, a low-income mom struggling to get by ... good luck finding programming that even pretends to reflect your life.
Unlike in our first Watch Out, Listen Up! report, we chose not to designate a "Network of Shame" or a "Primetime Leader" this year. Each network has its bright spots and its bleak spots in the portrayal of women, people of color and other marginalized groups. All six broadcast networks can do betterómuch betteróin the areas of gender composition and diversity, violence, sexual exploitation and social responsibility. We must hold them accountable to all the viewers who ultimately make them rich.
For a copy of the complete report in PDF format, visit the NOW
web site.
-
Global Report on Violence and Health, World Health Organization,
October 3, 2002.
Press Release Excerpt:
The World Report on Violence and Health is the first comprehensive report
of its kind to address violence as a global public health problem. Violence
kills more than 1.6 million people every year. Public health experts say
these statistics are just the tip of the iceberg with the majority of
violent acts being committed behind closed doors and going largely unreported.
This report aims to shed light on these acts. In addition to the deaths,
millions of people are left injured as a result of violence and suffer
from physical, sexual, reproductive and mental health problems, says the
first comprehensive World report on violence and health released today
by the World Health Organization (WHO).
The death and disability caused by violence make it one of the leading public health issues of our time, says the report. Violence is among the leading causes of death for people aged 15-44 years of age, accounting for 14% of deaths among males and 7% of deaths among females. On an average day, 1424 people are killed in acts of homicide almost one person every minute. Roughly one person commits suicide every 40 seconds. About 35 people are killed every hour as a direct result of armed conflict. In the 20th century, an estimated 191 million people lost their lives directly or indirectly as a result of conflict, and well over half of them were civilians. Studies have shown that in some countries, health care expenditures due to violence account for up to 5% of GDP.
*
The report challenges us in many respects. It forces us to reach beyond our notions of what is acceptable and comfortable?to challenge notions that acts of violence are simply matters of family privacy, individual choice, or inevitable facets of life, said Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, Director-General of WHO on releasing the report. ?Violence is a complex problem related to patterns of thought and behaviour that are shaped by a multitude of forces within our families and communities, forces that can also transcend national borders,? she added.
The World report on violence and health is the first comprehensive
review of the problem of violence at a global level. It focuses not
only on the scale of the problem, but also covers issues related to
the causes of violence and the methods for preventing violence and reducing
its adverse health and social consequences. In addition to the familiar
issues of collective violence such as war or conflict, the report examines
equally significant yet frequently overlooked issues such as youth violence,
child abuse, elderly abuse, intimate partner violence, sexual violence,
and self-inflicted violence or suicides.
For information on ordering the report, contact the World Health Organization
at bookorders@who.int. The report
is not available online.
-
Report Indicates Gender-Related Violence Is Global, Jordan
Lite, Women's Enews,
October 3, 2002.
An unprecedented United Nations report on violence and health is
expected to be a powerful tool for advocates wishing to improve their
nations' responses to domestic and sexual violence with new legislative
and health care policies.
Article Excerpt:
Up to 70 percent of female murder victims worldwide are killed by their
male companions and as many as one-third of girls are forced into their
first sexual experience, according to a World Health Organization report
released Thursday. The report urged countries to no longer treat violence
solely as a "law and order issue."
Violence must instead be addressed by preventive public health measures, the agency says. Violent acts are most often committed behind closed doors and go unreported, according to the document, making violence "one of the leading public health issues of our time."
While most of the data in the "World Report on Violence and Health" is not new, the report is significant because it is the first time a United Nations agency has produced a major document that acknowledges the public health implications of violence beyond those of injury and death--particularly domestic and sexual violence that occurs in private, said Etienne Krug, director of the department of injuries and violence prevention at the World Health Organization.
"Violence is often only addressed in the context of war or the context of crime," said Krug, who edited the report. "By doing so we miss some of the violence that is not necessarily crime: violence in the home, bullying, suicide."
The United Nations first declared violence a worldwide public health
problem at the World Health Assembly in Geneva in 1996. Now, armed with
data on the extent of the problem and nine recommendations to address
it, the World Health Organization will conduct an 18-month violence-prevention
campaign. Fifteen countries have already invited agency officials to
present their findings and review how effectively those countries are
implementing preventive measures, Krug said.
For a copy of the complete article, visit the Women's
ENews web site.
Proportion of Single Moms in Poverty and on Welfare Declines,
U.S. Census Bureau, October 25, 2002.
Press Release:
The proportion of custodial mothers -- a ratio of 4-in-5 are single
-- taking part in the nation's public assistance programs fell from
26 percent to 11 percent over six years, according to a new report on
child support released today by the Commerce Department's Census Bureau.
"Employment rates for custodial parents grew since 1993, with more
than half working full-time in 1999," said Timothy Grall, author of
Custodial
Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 1999. [PDF 99.6kb]
"At the same time, the proportion of mothers and their children living
in poverty dropped 8 percentage points, to about 3-in-10 families."
The report also shows that, after increasing to 46 percent between
1993 and 1997, the proportion of custodial parents due support payments
who received the full amount did not change significantly between
1997 and 1999.
Other highlights:
- In spring 2000, an estimated 13.5 million parents had custody
of 21.7 million children who were under age 21 and whose other parent
lived elsewhere. Of all custodial parents, 85 percent were mothers
and 15 percent were fathers.
- More than 60 percent of custodial mothers and 39 percent of fathers
had child support agreed on or awarded to them as of April 2000.
- Custodial mothers received about 60 percent of the support due
to them in 1999, while custodial fathers collected almost 48 percent.
- Custodial mothers who received any child support payments received
an average of $3,800 in 1999; fathers averaged $3,200.
- Despite the 7-percentage-point decline in poverty for all custodial-parent
families, the 26 percent rate remained about four times higher than
the rate for married-couple families with related children in 1999
(6 percent).
The data were collected from the April 2000 supplement to the Current
Population Survey, cosponsored by the Census Bureau and the Department
of Health and Human Services' Office of Child Support Enforcement.
Statistics from sample surveys are subject to sampling and nonsampling
error.
-
Poverty Rate Rises, Household Income Declines, Census Bureau
Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, September 24, 2002.
Press Release Excerpt:
After falling for four straight years, the nation's poverty rate rose
from 11.3 percent in 2000 to 11.7 percent in 2001. Median household
income declined 2.2 percent in real terms from its 2000 level to $42,228
in 2001, according to reports released today by the Commerce Department's
Census Bureau.
"Like the last year-to-year increase in poverty in 1991-1992 and the
last decrease in real household income in 1990-1991, these changes coincided
with a recession," said Daniel Weinberg, chief of the Census Bureau's
Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division.
The poverty rate and the number of poor increased among several population
groups between 2000 and 2001, including all families, married-couple
families, unrelated individuals, non-Hispanic Whites, people 18-to-64
years old and the native population.
"The real median earnings of women age 15 and older who worked full
time, year-round increased for the fifth consecutive year, rising to
$29,215 -- a 3.5 percent increase between 2000 and 2001," said Weinberg.
Men with similar work experience did not experience a statistical change
in earnings ($38,275). As a result, the female-to-male earnings ratio
reached an all-time high of 0.76. The previous high was 0.74, first
recorded in 1996.
The reports, Poverty in the United States: 2001 and Money
Income in the United States: 2001, are available on the Internet.
The data were gathered in the 2002 Annual Demographic Supplement
to the Current Population Survey. In addition, the reports discuss
experimental measures of income and poverty that account for noncash
benefits (such as food stamps) and taxes (such as the Earned Income
Credit) in income. ...
For a copy of the complete press release, or the original reports,
visit the U.S.
Census Bureau web site.
-
Left Behind or Staying Away? Eligible Parents Who Remain Off TANF,
Sheila R. Zedlewsk, Urban Institute, September 30, 2002.
Report Excerpt:
Of all individuals eligible for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF), only about half participate. That rate makes for the lowest
estimated take-up in decades (US DHHS 2002). Participation in Aid
to Families with Dependent Children, TANF's precursor, stayed fairly
steady at about 85 percent in the 1980s and early 1990s. Just before
the 1996 reforms, take-up started to drop. By 1999 (latest available
data), just 52 percent of qualifying families participated.
In the welfare reauthorization debate, many observers have declared the sharp caseload decline a sure sign of success. But the lighter load partly reflects shrinking participation among those who qualify for assistance. Some state welfare leaders sense that fewer disadvantaged families are coming to the welfare office. They also worry that some very poor families may abandon the application process because of its increased complexity. Families that skip significant cash benefits lose out on income and welfare services that could help them find jobs and gain earnings.
Some eligible families have always steered clear of welfare. In the 1980s, as caseloads soared, researchers explored the reasons behind individuals' decisions to participate. According to their findings, two factors played an important role: potential benefit levels and the benefit reduction rate (the benefits a recipient stands to lose with each additional dollar of earnings).1 Generally, as benefit levels declined, individuals were less likely to participate. Similarly, as earnings shrunk the amount of benefits a family qualified for, participation fell. Other factors, such as age, education, health, and family characteristics, also proved significant. Indeed, older individuals, less-educated individuals, and those with health problems were more likely to participate. Black families, families with more children, and those living outside the South also had higher take-up rates in the 1980s. Most of these models of welfare participation also included a factor approximating stigma or transaction costs, which depressed participation.
Although instructive, these findings reflect participation decisions before TANF. New program features may affect how much the findings apply to families that qualify for TANF. Time limits, by eliminating the benefit entitlement, may discourage many who are not in dire circumstances from enrolling. States also use strategies that divert enrollment. For example, many require individuals to document job searches, either before or while applying for benefits, or offer applicants a one-time cash payment in lieu of program enrollment (38 states use at least one of these types of diversions; 6 of them use both). State TANF policies that require a family to begin work activity as it soon as it enters the program may also discourage participation.
Other features of TANF might encourage participation. For example, the more generous earned income disregards adopted by many states allow families to keep more earnings while receiving reduced welfare payments. However, in most states the benefit time limit offsets this incentive, because families receiving a reduced benefit still use time on their benefit clocks. Thus, families must decide whether a small benefit check is worth using up future benefit eligibility.
These changes in welfare may have altered the characteristics of nonparticipating families. For example, diversion strategies may discourage the hardest-to-employ, in particular, from applying. TANF's earnings incentives may increase the number of working (and better-off) applicants. The declining participation rate tells us that something in welfare programs has changed: either more families are eligible for small cash benefits (which families see as too minimal to pursue, depressing the average participation rate) or more families with real needs are staying away from the welfare office.
To explore these questions, this brief compares the characteristics of qualifying nonparticipant single-parent familiesóthe group primarily eligible for and receiving assistance2ówith families that do participate. It begins by estimating whether nonparticipants forfeit large benefits, finding that a significant share (43 percent) would receive $500 or less a yearóa fairly small amount. But a sizeable share (37 percent) qualifies for moderate benefits ($500-$1,000), and a fair portion (20 percent) are eligible for $1,500 or more. From 1996 to 1998, the share of parents qualifying for $500 or less has stayed about the same.
Next, the profile of characteristics reveals that family circumstances and other factors differ in the various benefit categories. Most notably, by some measures, nonparticipating parents in the medium-benefit category appear better off than their participating counterparts. In addition to having fewer barriers to work, they tend to have fewer children and live with more adults. By contrast, nonparticipants and participants in the high-benefit category have similar personal characteristics. But nonparticipants in both the medium- and high-benefit categories tend to have greater family economic resources than participants.
These findings should ease worries that all qualifying families that do not enroll in TANF are falling behind. But they should not eliminate concern: 17 to 34 percent of single nonparticipating parents would gain significant income and services by enrolling in TANF. Many of these families are poor and have significant barriers to employment. Especially with economic growth flagging, state welfare programs need to ensure that diversion strategies and messages about welfare do not screen out some of the neediest families.
New Citations from
NCOFF's FatherLit Database
|
